capability_set_availability

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that this is a lightweight update and that it changes no other capability fields, which adds context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It clarifies the scope (active room) and optionality of workload. It does not contradict the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and followed by usage guidance and an alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundant information or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only two conceptual parameters, and the description covers purpose, usage context, and scope. The output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The only minor gap is not explaining the semantics of availability values in the description, but that is provided by the schema, making this adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions 'availability' and 'current workload,' which correspond to the two nested parameters, adding some meaning about what to set. However, it does not explain the enum values (available/busy/away/dnd) or the load scale (0-100), and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter detail. The schema itself provides descriptions, but the description adds limited additional semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action: 'Set this agent's availability and, optionally, its current workload in the active room.' It uses a clear verb (set) and specifies the resource (this agent's availability/current workload). It also distinguishes itself from capability_upsert_self, making it stand out among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides direct usage context: 'Use this lightweight status update when accepting or deferring work.' It also explicitly excludes the alternative: 'It changes no other capability fields; use capability_upsert_self for the full profile or skill data,' which clearly directs the agent when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.